OK, I loved both columns. But, it’s just a little scary when both Maureen Dowd and Ben Stein are talking about love. And both articles are on the New York Times’ top ten most emailed list.

Maureen writes about a priest’s description of An Ideal Husband, advice he gives to young women:

Never marry a man who has no friends. This usually means he’s incapable of the intimacy that marriage demands. (my comment – be sure to check and make sure he’s not just shy).

What do your friends and family think of him?

Does he use money responsibly? Is he stingy?

Steer clear of someone whose life you can run, i.e. no doormats

Is he overly attached to his mother?

Does he have a sense of humor?

Is he the ‘strong/silent’ type? (run away)

Are bad family habits? Racism, sexism, prejudice?

Do you share the same deepest values?

Does he possess the character traits that add up to being a good person? Is he wiling to forgive, praise, be courteous? or is he inclined to be a fibber, to fits of rage, to be a control freak, to be envious, to be secretive?

Then, Ben Stein:

My primary life study has been about love. Second comes economics, so here, in the form of a few rules, is a little amalgam of the two fields: the economics of love…

In general, and with rare exceptions, the returns in love situations are roughly proportional to the amount of time and devotion invested. The amount of love you get from an investment in love is correlated, if only roughly, to the amount of yourself you invest in the relationship.

If you invest caring, patience and unselfishness, you get those things back.

Are you kidding me? Ben Stein? He goes on:

With people and bonds – stick with high quality

Do your research

If you have to compete with others, even after a short while, forget the whole thing

Returns should equal investment

Love is a long-term investment – day traders will have many days of love but years of agony

Realistic expectations are everything

Stick with a winner

Have dogs and cats in your life

And he closes with this:

And let me close with another thought. I am far from glib about the economy. It has a lot of pitfalls facing it. As workers and investors, we know that many dangers lurk in our paths.

But so far, these things have always worked themselves out and this one will, too. In the meantime, they say that falling in love is wonderful, and that the best is falling in love with what you have.

So there you go. The economy is so bad, that pundits and economists are writing about love. Who said it? Love is all you need?

Should humans extend ‘human rights’ to (other) apes? Other in parentheses because, after all, we are apes too.

That’s the question they are debating right now in Spain – whether to grant limited rights to our closest biological relatives – the great apes – which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.

So, what would it mean?

It would become illegal to kill an ape, except in self-defense.

Torture and imprisonment would become strictly forbidden. This includes medical experiments, and circuses and films.

Apes in zoos would not be released, but would be treated better.

What does it not mean?

Apes do not get to drive cars, bear arms, and so on. Their status would be similar to children.

Do you agree? I have to say, I find this compelling. I know that bonobos, orangutans, and chimps can communicate with words – perhaps not spoken, but they understand. They all understand the concept of ‘the self.’ I hate the idea of medical/science testing on apes. I don’t believe in a soul, so I reject the notion that humans are superior in any metaphysical sense.

Yet, many humans aren’t afforded the same rights that Spain is now granting to nonhumans. The notion that we are going to so much trouble for these creatures when we have so far to go with humans does make me uncomfortable. I remember when I first learned that Africans felt that many Europeans and European Americans cared more about the animals in Africa than the people.

And as the article points out… what is Spain going to do about bullfighting?